The Prosecutorial Power of Kamala Harris: A Divisive Leadership Style

Kamala Harris Ran Her Office Like a Prosecutor. Not Everyone Liked That. Kamala Harris, the first female Vice President of the United States, is known for her background as a prosecutor. Her time as the Attorney General of California and District Attorney of San Francisco showcased her tough approach to law enforcement and criminal justice. However, her prosecutorial style has faced criticism from some quarters, particularly among progressive activists and civil liberties advocates. Harris’ tenure as a prosecutor was marked by a focus on tough-on-crime policies, often pursuing aggressive tactics to combat crime in California. She championed initiatives such as truancy enforcement, civil asset forfeiture, and harsh sentencing practices. While these approaches were aimed at addressing issues of public safety and justice, they also drew criticism for being heavy-handed and disproportionately impacting marginalized communities. One of the key criticisms of Harris’ prosecutorial style is her record on criminal justice reform. Throughout her career, she has been accused of being overly punitive and resistant to significant reforms that would address systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Critics argue that her approach prioritized convictions and maintaining the status quo over pursuing meaningful changes that could benefit society as a whole. Additionally, Harris has been faulted for failing to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct and abuses of power. Her reluctance to prosecute cases of police brutality and misconduct has been a source of frustration for many who believe in holding law enforcement officers to a higher standard of accountability. This perceived coziness with law enforcement has led some to question her commitment to upholding justice impartially. Another aspect of Harris’ prosecutorial style that has come under scrutiny is her support for policies that expanded the power of prosecutors and law enforcement. For example, she supported the use of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to a crime, often without due process. Critics argue that this practice disproportionately targets low-income individuals who may not have the resources to contest the seizure of their property. Despite these criticisms, it is important to acknowledge that Harris’ tenure as a prosecutor was marked by some positive achievements as well. She implemented initiatives to address truancy rates among students, worked to support victims of human trafficking, and pushed for reforms to the criminal justice system in California. Her experiences as a prosecutor give her a unique perspective on the challenges and complexities of the legal system, which she brings to her current role as Vice President. In conclusion, while Kamala Harris ran her office like a prosecutor, not everyone liked her tough approach to law enforcement and criminal justice. Critics argue that her prosecutorial style was often punitive, resistant to reform, and failed to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct. However, supporters point to her positive achievements and the valuable experience she gained that inform her work as Vice President today. As Harris continues to navigate these criticisms and challenges in her role, it remains to be seen how her prosecutorial background will shape her approach to governance and policy-making in the years to come.